Terence George Adams v the Criminal Justice Act 1988
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Nicola Davies |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin) |
| Date | 11 August 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: DTA/8/2012 |
[2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mrs Justice Nicola Davies
Case No: DTA/8/2012
Mr Krolick (instructed by Saunders Law) for the Applicant/Defendant
Mr Talbot (instructed by CPS) for the Crown
Hearing dates: 10,11,14 July
By an application dated 30 May 2012 Terence George Adams applies for a Certificate of Inadequacy pursuant to Section 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 (" CJA 1998"). On 6 February 2007 at the Central Crown Court the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to conceal, between August 1997 and May 2003, the proceeds of criminal conduct. On 9 March 2007 he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for the criminal offence. A Confiscation Order was made requiring him to pay £750,000 by 30 September 2007 with a default sentence of 4 years imprisonment. Pursuant to a written basis of plea, it was agreed between the prosecution and the defence that the value of the applicant's realisable assets for the purpose of the Confiscation Order was £750,000. It was agreed that the amount of money laundered during the 5 1/2 year period identified in the offence, did not exceed £1million. Absent from the papers in these proceedings is a Schedule of Assets as was required for the purpose of making a Confiscation Order. The applicant is also subject to a Financial Reporting Order ("FRO") made on 21 May 2007 for a period of 10 years. The order requires the applicant to submit financial reports; when in custody every 6 months, upon release, every 4 months. The applicant was released from prison in June 2010. He was arrested and returned to prison in August 2011 for breaches of the FRO. He pleaded guilty to breaches of the FRO and was sentenced to 8 weeks imprisonment. He was released from prison on 25 July 2012.
It is the applicant's case that the major part of the original realisable assets figure was the value of his interest in his matrimonial home at Fallowfield, London NW7. In addition items of jewellery, antiques, art, vehicles, cash seized by the police at the applicant's home amounting to £58,900, accounted for the remainder together with credit balances at banks. Fallowfield was not sold until 2009 and then at a reduced price. After relevant deductions, the applicant's share of the net proceeds of sale was £234,166.21. In October 2009 the CPS applied for the appointment of a Receiver in relation to the remainder of the applicant's assets. On 31 August 2010 the Receiver published his final account. He had disposed of all the assets of the applicant which had been referred to in his letter of appointment and had realised the net sum of £130,323.39 which was paid in part satisfaction of the Confiscation Order. In his letter the Receiver stated that both the applicant and his wife had co-operated with the process. The total sum realised from the disposal of the applicant's assets and paid in part satisfaction of the Confiscation Order was £364,489.60. As at the date of the hearing the amount outstanding on the Confiscation Order was £651,611.00. Interest is accruing at the rate of £83 per day.
The Background to the Criminal Proceedings.
The background to the criminal proceedings is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal R v. Adams [2009] 1 WLR 301 by Latham LJ as follows:
"4. The background facts are as follows. The defendant was for a significant period of time a highly successful career criminal and was well known as such. By his basis of plea it is plain that he was asserting and it was accepted by the prosecution, the criminality in question had ceased in or about 1993. The basis of plea was:
"(a) I will plead guilty to count 10 only excluding drugs on the basis of a full fact opening. (b) The prosecution will not undermine any suggestion that the criminality which created the funds was five to six years before 1998 (consequently the defendant will mitigate on the basis that although money from crime was laundered in accordance with the time frame in Count 10, no other crime has been committed since five to six years before 1998). (c) The prosecution are content for the defence to mitigate on the basis that the total value of the criminal activity at the time of offences was £1m. (d) Confiscation—figure for realizable assets is £750,000. (e) Prosecution cost £50,000.
5. The defendant had clearly amassed a considerable fortune by the time of the end of his criminal activity and it was expended on a lavish lifestyle which involved, according to the prosecution, significant numbers of first class flights to different destinations around the world, expensive jewellery, private education for his child and the acquisition of antiques, works of art and other property. When he was ultimately arrested on 30 April 2003 his home, Fallowfields was a large property in a desirable area of North London. The police found substantial quantities of valuable property and the clear indications were that the defendant had been able to maintain his lifestyle because of the criminal activities in question.
6. The defendant had paid no income tax for a significant period. There was an investigation into his position in 1995, and eventually in 1996 he agreed to pay £95,000 settlement, covering his tax liabilities. But that was on the basis of false information that he had provided. It then became apparent to him that he would have, in some way or another, to account in a way which would satisfy the authorities for the wealth that he had amassed. It was in those circumstances that he obtained the assistance of others in order to disguise the proceeds of crime.
7. It was principally done through sham companies that were set up, in particular Skye Consultancy Ltd., and Clouds Consultancy Ltd., which gave him effectively bogus employment and an income generated by the companies on the basis that he was some form of consultant. The precise details of the way in which those companies were operated is not of any materiality for the purposes of the sentencing exercise. Suffice it to say that means were found to enable an apparently honest source of income to be developed over a substantial period of time. Indeed, the prosecution case was in reality that the whole of the period from 1996 onwards was a period in which the defendant was seeking, by bogus means, to hide the way in which he had come by his money.
8. Although, at the end of the day, the prosecution were prepared to accept the basis of plea, it remains to some extent uncertain what the full extent of the financial situation was or indeed is. None the less the Judge was prepared to sentence the defendant on the basis of the matters which were accepted by the prosecution on that basis of plea. …"
Evidence for the purpose of the criminal proceedings was obtained from covert surveillance using listening devices installed in the home of the applicant and his wife between June 1997 and February 1999. Ruth Adams, the applicant's wife, was jointly charged with her husband and others with offences of fraudulent trading, furnishing false information and Count 10. The Particulars of Count 10 stated that Terence and Ruth Adams together with two others " Between the 5 th day of August 1997 and the 12 th day of January 2003 conspired together with Saul Solomon Nahome and other persons to conceal or disguise property which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of relevant criminal conduct and/or drug trafficking of the said Terence George Adams with the intention of avoiding prosecution for an offence to which Part vi of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 applies and/or a drug trafficking offence or for the purpose of avoiding the making or enforcement in his case of a Confiscation Order." Prior to the hearing in 2007 Ruth Adams had been seriously ill. The prosecution did not pursue the charges against Ruth Adams following her husband's plea of guilty to Count 10. Following their arrest in April 2003 a Restraint Order prohibiting the disposal of assets was made against Terence and Ruth Adams on 22 July 2003.
At trial it was the Crown's case that the applicant had retired from crime between 1991 and 1993 which was described as the "clearest measure of his success as a criminal businessman." It was said that prior to the mid nineties Terence Adams had been able to maintain his lifestyle without the need to demonstrate any visible means of support, he had achieved this by placing his funds in the hands of third parties and nominees, drawing on those funds as and when necessary. It was in early 1995 that the Special Compliance Office of the Inland Revenue began an investigation into Terence Adams's finances as a result of which it became necessary for him to provide details of his source of income over a period of some six years. Until he was murdered in November 1998, Solly Nahome played a principal part in organising Terence Adams's financial affairs. Following his death his role in relationship to Terence Adams's finances was assumed by three others—Ruth Adams, Nahome's widow Joanna Barnes and a friend, an accountant/bookkeeper. It was the Crown's case that these three individuals continued to practise the deceits necessary to conceal the fact that Terence Adams derived his income from the proceeds of crime. Joanna Barnes was also charged with forging a loan agreement ostensibly between her husband and Terence Adams, an offence to which she pleaded guilty.
The Current Proceedings.
In summary the applicant contends that at the time the Confiscation Order was made the prosecution could agree with confidence that there were no hidden or unidentified assets. If the available amount for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Crown Prosecution Service
...COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE DAVIES [2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Hamblen and Lord Justice Irwin Case No: C1/2014/28......